Georgia’s score in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has remained unchanged.

In the 2015 CPI, released by the anti-corruption watchdog on January 27, Georgia’s score is 52, same as in 2014.

CPI ranks countries based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be and it scores countries on a scale from 0 – perceived to be highly corrupt, to 100 – perceived to be very clean.

Georgia’s CPI score was 52 in 2012, 49 in 2013 and 52 again in 2014 and 2015.

“Since, according to the CPI methodology, only an increase or a decrease of the CPI score by 4 points or more indicates a significant change in the perceived level of corruption in a country, these results show that the corruption perception level has remained stable in Georgia over the last three years and there has been no significant progress or backslide during this period of time,” Transparency International Georgia said.

With its score of 52 Georgia remains ahead of other former Soviet states, except of the Baltic States, and is also ahead of EU-member Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Romania.

With this score Georgia is ranked 48th among 168 countries survived in 2015 CPI.

TI Georgia, Tbilisi-based member of Transparency International’s network, said that Georgia took a number of steps in 2015 to improve its anti-corruption policies, including through updating its National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan, adopting legislative amendments on verification of the asset declarations of public officials in 2017, and adopting stronger legal provisions on whistleblower protection.

It, however, also said that a number of important issues still need to be addressed to achieve “further progress”.

Among them the watchdog group listed: elimination of “informal influence” on public institutions; establishment of an independent anti-corruption body that will have the necessary powers and resources for the prevention of complex types of corruption, including among high-ranking officials; establishment of the mechanisms for the enforcement of legal provisions designed for the prevention of conflict of interest and corruption; establishment of an independent and professional civil service that will be free of political influence; establishment of an effective and transparent system for recruitment and dismissal in the civil service that will exclude the possibility of politically motivated decisions and nepotism; establishment of an independent investigatory mechanism for the investigation of crimes committed by law enforcement officers; safeguarding of institutional independence of the supervisory and regulatory institutions and prevention of political interference in their operations; reduction of the excessively big share of simplified procurement in public procurement.